mymistress-mymistrust

The
lies of feminism and equality (and our belief that they can lead to
freedom) have damaged what was once a strong line of truly reciprocal
connections and relationships between men and women.

It
is in her inherent feminine allure that a woman’s power lays, and it is
this strength that causes men to both desire and despise. For this, she
can be either courted, admired, and respected (long term) or pursued,
bedded, and discarded (short term). She cannot have both.

The nature of the masculine character is passionate, territorial, and competitive. Property
(and everything is either yours or not yours in essence), be it an
emotional or physical investment is valued by it being exclusive to the
individual. This also applies to genetic family, friends, pets,
et cetera.

Property
held in common, be it a lover or a friend, becomes less valuable the
more it is shared and the more distant it becomes. Oddly, although the
“Women’s Liberation/Feminism movement” revolts at the idea of ladies
being property, yet these same feminists will bemoan the fact that men who happen
to be their husbands are “cheating” on them, as though they owned them
through marriage.

It
is through the exclusivity of a relationship that emotional and
physical investment is made. If no seed of attachment/affection beyond
the initial chase and passion of capture is planted, a sort of
aloofness will ensue instead. This is the instinctual timeline that one
night stands and polyamory are situated in – as much as a man may value
his “multiple mistresses” or “bar-room dollies” for the pleasure they
bring he will be a lot less likely to either exert any extra energy for
them or remain emotionally connected. That is not a property he wishes
his heart to “own”, as it is likely to be in someone else’s arms
tomorrow.

The
ideals of “freedom” under the terms that feminism describes as
“equality” is a pipe dream that does not consider the realities of the
human psyche. Part of a man’s investment in caring about someone is a
desire to protect them, and an asexual partner standing with
hands-on-hips demanding submission will not illicit this commitment. To
demand (and demanding will bring nothing but hostility from masculine
parties) that a man both make an emotional investment in a relationship
and yet permit his “beloved” to emasculate the specific devotions which
he offers is destructive to any relationship that may develop. A lady
who lets herself be what would be considered “weak and dependant” in
this day and age wields more power and will gain more respect
(congeniality not submission) from men than any “tom boy” woman can
ever hope to verbally beat into them or any open-leggedplaymate might drain from their wallets.

In
history there have been attempts by women to gain power over men
through sexuality, namely the professional courtesans, who blended
feminine seduction with intellectual companionship. Unfortunately, none
of these expensive harlots could keep the financial sponsorship or the
hearts of the men they caught – no matter how attractive their fleshly
property was. Most died in poverty and misery, and deservedly so. Any
lady who cannot see the writing on the wall of instinctual and
intellectual truth, ignoring her strengths and refusing to appreciate
her innate “weaknesses” that could make her secure belongs on her
island of lonely independence.